In the opening debates following the Warnock Report in 1984, the organized movement opposed to embryo research pressed the Government to introduce appropriate legislation without delay. Government speakers in both Houses accepted that legislation on embryo research was urgently needed and promised that legislative action would be taken soon. In subsequent parliamentary sessions, Government representatives were regularly required to explain why this promise had not been kept. It was suggested that the Government had adopted a policy of ‘making consultation a substitute for action’ with the aim of frustrating the wishes of the parliamentary majority.

The Government's reply to such criticism was, firstly, that they were internally divided and held no position in common which could provide the basis for legislation on embryo research. Secondly, Government speakers insisted that, even if they had been able to agree among themselves, they would still have been unable to act quickly because of the absence of agreement among other parliamentarians. Government representatives maintained that the Government were obliged to remain neutral with respect to an issue that cut across conventional party lines and about which there was no settled view. They argued that they had no real alternative but to promote further debate and to await patiently, along with other Members, the eventual resolution of initial differences of opinion.

The two central themes in the Government's defence of their own actions were ‘neutrality’ and ‘consensus’.